UCLA Basketball: Questions About Ben Howland's Approach

As Bruin Nation licks its wounds from another tough loss in the Final Four and awaits news on the fate of its potential NBA Draft Picks (or at least "draft eligible"), there has arisen an interesting array of questions about the UCLA program and its architect, Ben Howland.

No. 1: Was Ben Howland out-coached in any of the past three tournament losses? 

ESPN's Doug Gottlieb and Colin Cowherd represented the two opposing views on this fairly well.  Gottlieb blamed the second Florida loss and this year's Memphis defeat squarely on Howland's unwillingness to make adjustments, while the Herd defended the losses as understandable given the freakish athleticism of the opponents.  My own immediate reaction was that Howland was badly out-coached, this year in particular...to wit:

• It took 29 minutes for Howland to even TRY having Westbrook guard Derrick Rose.
• I believe the first set play of the game for UCLA was a Shipp post entry to Love...I do not remember seeing another set play that got Love the ball in a position to succeed. Memphis played well and was certainly deserving, but such a lame effort shows a lack of in-game adjustments.
• Not since the days of Billy Paultz and Mark Landsberger have I seen LESS intimidating post offense than Memphis seemed capable of the other night...and still UCLA couldn't seem to get the right guys in the right position on the perimeter.
• The regular season rotations didn't seem to create the depth that would have really come in handy down the stretch.  During the season, Keefe was used sparingly despite showing flashes of talent over the past couple years.  Would it not have been more productive to let Keefe work out his kinks during the season rather than continually employing the incredibly awkward Aboya?

No. 2: Is Howland's style creating the best environment for tournament success? 

It's not that losing in three straight Final Fours means demeans the achievement of getting there in the first place, but three strikingly similar losses must raise a red flag.  Each year, UCLA encountered a long, loose, athletic team and seemed completely lost.  And each year, their approach has been stubbornly consistent.  To be fair, other teams that emphasize the hard-nosed defensive, half-court style have similarly met unkind fates in the tournament (right UNC?) and this may be more a reflection on the state of college basketball than on the approach of Ben Howland, but still it remains a question for the future.

No. 3: Is Howland's leadership style causing problems?  

I have a friend who has fed me gossip about how the UCLA players dislike the grinding style Howland employs.  Having suffered through what I felt were the overly lackadaisical years of Steve Lavin, I dismissed this as the to-be-expected grousing of players who were now accountable to their coach and team as they had not been before.  Beside, we were winning...so what's not to like?

Watching a heady player like Darren Collison commit an incredibly dumb foul to end what may be his last college game, I was struck by the LACK of emotion on his face.  Watching Josh Shipp flounder about the court so obviously out of his element, I can't help but think that he was going through more than a shooting slump.  I hate to even bring this up, as I'm loathe to heap too much on the coach, but I can't help but wonder....do these guys really LOVE playing for their coach?

As a committed UCLA fan, I think it is important to note that these concerns are a welcome replacement to wondering whether the team will actually make the tournament, whether embarrassing foibles will lead to NCAA sanctions, and to listening to Steve Lavin in general, but they are there nonetheless...